Comments on: time

By: Tamfang

Tamfang — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:07:05 +0000

I approve of Mo’s new nose.

By: Chrissy the Curvy Catholic :-)

Chrissy the Curvy Catholic :-) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:15:07 +0000

I don’t have any problem with celebrating Jesus’ birthday on Dec. 25 – after all, if He existed at all, He had to have a birthday sometime, right? So since we have no way of knowing the actual date, Dec. 25 is as good a choice as any. Though it must be a bummer to have your birthday be the same day as Christmas.

By: Prozacville

Prozacville — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:42:18 +0000

As a man preparing a Revisionist Advent Calendar, I like to ask myself the question: “What would Larry David do?”

(I don’t often get an answer, even from my myself, but I like posing the question.)

By: JOSIAH MWANGI NJOROGE

JOSIAH MWANGI NJOROGE — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:18:46 +0000

Its Jesus or never.Change your life,change others too.

By: Cartoon: Get ready it’s war on Christmas time!

Cartoon: Get ready it’s war on Christmas time! — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:45:36 +0000

[...] Get ready it’s war on Christmas time! Posted at November 30, 2009 via [...]

By: Jerry w

Jerry w — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:33:25 +0000

It’s funny, all of this talk about putting christ back in christmas music.

As Johnny Cash’s daughter Rosanne once said, there’s never a word about what has to be put back into country music.

Hmm, seemed a bit funnier when it was said aloud.

By: A Simple Man

A Simple Man — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:01 +0000

On Persecution -

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

By: Hobbes

Hobbes — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:57:05 +0000

Mo had it right. The real meaning of the celebration is the Winter Solstice (the returning of the sun).

By: Brother Daniel

Brother Daniel — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:52:07 +0000

kiyaroru: When you consider the parallelism with the next verse (which starts with “in the same way” and then refers explicitly to male homosexuality), it seems most likely that Rom 1:26 does indeed refer to lesbianism. You’re right that it isn’t explicitly so, and so there’s room for other interpretations, but it’s (IMO) the most likely interpretation (as well as the traditional one FWIW).

By: Stephen Turner

Stephen Turner — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:49:14 +0000

The former UK law against homosexuality never prohibited lesbianism, reputedly because when Victoria came to sign the law she found the idea of sinful thoughts of ungodly woman sex disgusting.

Those who have not yet looked up Romans 1:26 are in for a treat if they read the very next verse:
“1:27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the
women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men,
working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense
which was due to their error.” (Douay-Rheims Bible)

By: Daoloth

Daoloth — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:04:48 +0000

@RB I think we may have got our purposes crossed?
I would not use one religion to discredit another. However, by pointing out the similarities between lots of disparate religious beliefs across time and space, many of which have had no opportunity for cross polination, I claim that there is a prima facie case for saying that these beliefs answer to a deep human need (to make sense of an otherwise unust universe?), rather than are a response to an external truth (Christ is risen?).
For example, if I describe a redeemer god as someone with a magical birth, who died for our sins and was resurrected and will bring justice to the downtrodden I could be describing Christ. I could also be describing Krishna son of Devi (Hinduism); Quetzlcoatl of the Mexica; Mithras of the Pagans/ Persians; Attis of the Galatian Phygians; Osiris of the Egyptians; Dionysus of the Greeks; Zoroasta, or (some versions of) the Buddha. In some cases these are clearly the same person (e.g. Dionysus comes from Osiris) but in other cases they arise separately. For example, Mithras predates Christ by 600 years. In many cases the life histories (e.g. virginity of mother, cannibalism of the martyr) and words used about them (e.g. �light�, �redeemer�) are strikingly similar.
This knowledge tends to surprise many christians, who often use the so-called unique character of christ as evidence to shore up their faith. They are wrong.

By: kiyaroru

kiyaroru — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:24:47 +0000

Brother Daniel
Romans 1:26 says “unnatural” or “against nature”. The only other mentions of women doing unusual sex are regarding bestiality. No indication of girl-on-girl. Anywhere.

By: nina

nina — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:29:59 +0000

wright

I guess the question is – would secular society be discriminatory to gays and lesbians, if not for the religious bias and influence?

Which religion also previously justified the “secular” second class status of women and black people….

By: nina

nina — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:28:08 +0000

r00db00y

The traditions of any religion are no more acceptable than other religions owing to the type of religion. All religions have the same evidence – none – and thus are all equally not valid.

That said, some traditions are more acceptable than others based on assessing their benefit/harm ratio.

By: Stonyground

Stonyground — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:05:22 +0000

I have no problem with Christians wishing to celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior over the midwinter period. I do have a bit of a problem when they seek to monopolise the festivities by claiming that only they know the true meaning of Christmas and that we should all celebrate it their way or not at all. The festive season also generally brings a rash of non-stories from the tabloid press about evil PC types wanting to rebrand Christmas as Winterval and to spoil all the Christian’s fun, these have become utterly tiresome over the years.

On the subject of cards, I quite like the slightly unusual cards from http://www.hedinghamfair.co.uk that have a somewhat pagan feel and have info about various bygone Christmas traditions on the back.

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:42:13 +0000

- �Accept� in what sense? Why do you expect any one atheist to be able to answer for all the others?
- How is it possible not to?
- �Acceptable� in what sense, and to whom?
- Depends on the circumstances. How can anyone else tell you the answer?
- Well we�re talking about christmas now, but what difference does it make whether it�s easter or christmas?

The site�s called �Jesus and Mo� in case you missed it. Sometimes other religions are addressed. In what way does not systematically and specifically criticizing every religion the human race has ever invented reduce the validity of the criticisms of these particular two (or three if you prefer)?

�Vilified� is an exaggeration. �Mocked� would be more accurate.

How would you distinguish between intelligent, ironic criticism and mockery on one hand, and �taking it up the jacksy� on the other? Why do you feel religions practiced by large numbers should be exempt from either?

By: Enlightenment

Enlightenment — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:53:19 +0000

Merry Horus-mas!

By: James

James — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:30:11 +0000

I find it really funny here in the States when Christians get all worked up about the lack of religiosity in the Christmas season! They don’t know their early American history well because celebrating Christmas was outlawed in many places (primarily the New England states) until the 19th century. Those Christians opposed to it largely considered the holiday “Papist” and refused to commemorate it.

By: Occasionalposter

Occasionalposter — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:01:19 +0000

Oops. I mean “insist” not “insisting.”

By: Occasionalposter

Occasionalposter — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:59:45 +0000

r00db00y, of course I can’t speak for anyone else but I think the Christmas thing is mostly about the fact that Christians pick one of the meanings that have been tacked onto the holiday over the years and insisting that everyone respects it as the true meaning of Christmas. In years to come when the cult of yellow sock wearers is supplanting the commercialism of Retailmas I will point out to all the outraged retailers that it wasn’t always Retailmas anyway. Then I will go out on my second-hand hoverboard wearing nothing but yellow socks in defiance of Toys R Us.